On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-03 12:45:34 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> >> Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing
>> >> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason that I could see not be a
>> >> vacuum_delay_point, so I changed that one as well.
>>
>> - if (vac_delay)
>> - vacuum_delay_point();
>> + vacuum_delay_point();
>>
>> If vac_delay is false, e.g., ginInsertCleanup() is called by the backend,
>> vacuum_delay_point() should not be called. No?
>
> No, that's the whole point of the change, we need a
> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() even when called by backends. I personally think
> it's rather ugly to rely on the the one in vacuum_delay_point,
Same here.
> but Jeff
> and Tom think it's better, and I can live with that.
OK, probably I can live with that, too.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao